Massive I-94, I-75 reconstruction projects on horizon for Metro Detroit

[Wesley Mouch]

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

Bailey, the logic of the high priests here is that increasing road capacity induces an increase in road usage. Businesses locate along the freeway. More people get in the habit of using that new, faster road. And this builds on itself until the new, higher capacity roadway is just as 'congested' as the old road.

Look at M-59. I don't live out these in that god-forsaken land of sprawl, but I have seen it over the last decades. Driving from Utica to Gratiot during rush hour remains miserable. A lot more cars move, but perhaps not much faster.

The congregation here believes that if you don't build new freeways, the existing traffic simply finds a diverse route to and through the city. In the old days, streets like Second, Third, and John R were fitted out with timed lights to become very efficient. Why? Because Woodward became congested -- even at its obscene width. The Lodge and Chrysler 'solved' this -- but also took the traffic away from Woodward. One might argue that if this traffic had stayed on Woodward, the streetscape might have remained more viable.

The church also ignores that much of the traffic on our freeways isn't commuters, but it commerce. Trucks. They have an answer for that. More trains.

Also, they ignore that there are a lot of people and trucks simply passing through. Their answer to that is to send them away. They don't understand that traffic and congestion are a normal part of a viable community. Downtown Royal Oak is congested, as is true with Ann Arbor. Why? Because people want to be there. Why? Because other people are there. Its a feedback loop. If you keep your freeways running efficiently, then visitors and commerce will come and congest your world. And you shall truly be joyous unto the lord of commerce. And thou shalt be vilified by those who see in petcoke an environmental disaster, rather than a sign of Detroit's comeback.

[Detroitnerd]

Valiant effort to bring facts to the table. But remember that this discussion is about religion. Certain mosques hate the west because of our approach to life. This synagogue worships Kunstler/Jacobs and takes it as a matter of faith that freeways are evil.

Actually, the opponents of this expansion have marshaled their facts quite intelligently. If anything reeks of policy rooted in mythology, it's when the facts fly in the face of your argument and you simply keep reading the same scripture. [["Expansions fight congestion! Urban freeways don't depress city land value!")

Whatever, man. Live by faith, not by sight!

[Hypestyles]

what happened to the "Bus Rapid Transit" proposal from Snyder? weren't these supposed to take advantage of the freeways?

[Khorasaurus]

what happened to the "Bus Rapid Transit" proposal from Snyder? weren't these supposed to take advantage of the freeways?

No. They're supposed to run on the major arterials like Woodward, Gratiot, etc. Traffic lights will be timed so they don't have to stop except at stations. That's how the one in Grand Rapids that is being built will work.

[Bham1982]

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion.

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

[DetroitPlanner]

what happened to the "Bus Rapid Transit" proposal from Snyder? weren't these supposed to take advantage of the freeways?

I suggest you read the whole plan. I am willing to bet that most who comment on the plan have not read it, but are parroting others.

"commitment to the RTA for an additional $6.5 million to study transit development in other high-priority transit corridors including express bus, rail, and bus rapid transit [[e.g., Gratiot Ave. [[M-3) from Detroit to Mt. Clemens; M-59 corridor between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens; and Michigan Ave. [[M-12) from Downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor, including service to Detroit Metropolitan Airport)."

[Khorasaurus]

I suggest you read the whole plan. I am willing to bet that most who comment on the plan have not read it, but are parroting others.

"commitment to the RTA for an additional $6.5 million to study transit development in other high-priority transit corridors including express bus, rail, and bus rapid transit [[e.g., Gratiot Ave. [[M-3) from Detroit to Mt. Clemens; M-59 corridor between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens; and Michigan Ave. [[M-12) from Downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor, including service to Detroit Metropolitan Airport)."

What are the you quoting there? SEMCOG's regional transportation plan?

[Khorasaurus]

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

Strawmen are fun! You can knock them down!

Yes, a freeway is more efficient than a dirt road. But a four lane freeway is not more efficient than a three lane freeway in the long run.

[iheartthed]

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

No, it wouldn't necessarily be less congestion. Widening the roads could just entice drivers to use the widened road who would have otherwise taken another route, such as drivers who are just traveling a short distance. So the expanded roadway might simultaneously shave 30 seconds from the trip of a person who is only going 2 miles -- since they get to avoid stop lights on the surface street they would've otherwise taken -- while adding 10 minutes to the commute of someone traveling 20 miles because that person has to share the new lanes with people skipping stoplights.

[Bham1982]

Yes, a freeway is more efficient than a dirt road. But a four lane freeway is not more efficient than a three lane freeway in the long run.

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

[iheartthed]

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

Larger subways and buses don't induce demand just like SUVs don't induce demand. It is network capacity, not vehicle capacity.

[TexasT]

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

He said more efficient. Efficiency means more than just the volume of traffic moved.

My hometown of Houston keeps widening its freeways. The Katy Freeway is now 12 lanes across [[up to 20 lanes in some places), not including service roads [[or feeders, as we call 'em down there). Traffic is still terrible. The more you build, the more cars use it and any increase in flow is negated. Terrible cycle.



Here's the Katy Freeway most of the day, when it isnt' clogged for rush hour:



This was my lovely commute from the suburb where I was raised to downtown. I lived 30ish miles north of city center. It was an hour and a half drive in the morning rush hour. This is I-45; even 8-10 lanes doesn't help.




PLEASE learn from our mistakes!

[DetroitPlanner]

What are the you quoting there? SEMCOG's regional transportation plan?

YES! It is in there... That is what I am saying people are commenting on what others are commenting on without reading the whole plan!!

[Khorasaurus]

YES! It is in there... That is what I am saying people are commenting on what others are commenting on without reading the whole plan!!

I don't think people oppose the entire SEMCOG transportation plan. Just the I-94 [[and in some cases I-75) part.

[Khorasaurus]

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

It's been explained above, but basically when you increase capacity on a road, then more people will use the road, which uses up the excess capacity and means you don't improve efficiency. So we'll spend 2.7 billion dollars, I-94 will be just as congested, and Gratiot, Warren, etc will be even more empty.

For transit, adding capacity also induces demand, but "congestion" manifests as crowded stations, rather than the transit vehicle taking longer to reach its destination. So you get better efficiency. It is also much easier to add capacity to a transit system [[just buy an additional bus or train). And, finally, more people riding transit is a good thing, because it means, among many other things, less cars on the road.

Some, in conclusion, more freeway lanes = the same amount of congestion, plus negative impacts. More transit = less freeway congestion, plus positive impacts.

[Bham1982]

Larger subways and buses don't induce demand just like SUVs don't induce demand. It is network capacity, not vehicle capacity.

Ok, then we should build no rail routes or new bus routes, because they will never provide any additional capacity?

Induced congestion is being misused in this thread. The theory doesn't claim that you can't reduce congestion by building more capacity; it just states that traffic will take the most convenient route, so if you expand a roadway it will generate an additional degree of traffic above the current traffic levels.

So, for example, if current traffic volume on I-75 is X, and you add a lane, the new traffic level might be X+.2X. It doesn't mean that the expanded highway will have the exact same congestion as the previous highway.

And you also have to look at the greater traffic context. Much of induced traffic is actually traffic redirected from other arterials.

[Detroitnerd]

Induced congestion is being misused in this thread. The theory doesn't claim that you can't reduce congestion by building more capacity; it just states that traffic will take the most convenient route, so if you expand a roadway it will generate an additional degree of traffic above the current traffic levels.

Hey, Captain Disingenuous. If you "reduce congestion" by "adding capacity" and it then will "generate an additional degree of traffic above the current levels," then you can NEVER reduce congestion by building capacity. And that's exactly what the phenomenon of "induced demand" is all about.

C'mon, Bham. I don't know what ax you're grinding here, but you know better...

[Scottathew]

The cost for I-75 expansion are vastly under-estimated, and that is not including the cost of land acquisition and lawsuits. They are pricing it as if it were one of those rural stretches with the highway at grade and where the state already has the right-of-way for sufficient space to expand. They don't seem to include bridge reconstruction in the estimate, either

M-DOT is very good at staying on budget.

People [[the nice way of saying YOU) are VASTLY exaggerating ROW acquisition need in the I-75 project. The 4th lane is coming from the sloping areas south of 12 mile, and the grassy median north of it.

The main part that is going to require ROW acquisition is on the east side of NB 75 between 11 Mile and 696 due to the ramp braiding.

I'll tell you what, if the government wants to come in and take my shitty house that's on the service drive, I'd say THANK YOU. Of course not everyone will feel that way, but I don't see a big fight happening.

The government uses the power of eminent domain rather sparingly, and this case is not controversial or completely unexpected.

The only question I would have is how does eminent domain work with a house that's underwater? Do they bail the homeowner out? Or do they somehow remain stuck paying on a loan and no longer have a house. I would hope the government would fully pay off the loan.


As for dispelling the myths about all these houses that will be scooped up, here's the real details:

26 houses
2 businesses
1 church

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...6_420756_7.pdf

[Hermod]

Up to four lanes per travel direction [[i.e. an eight lane divided highway), adding lanes makes sense. Beyond eight lanes per travel direction, motorists become too confused and there are serious problems with lane changes. Once you get to four lanes by two directions, if you need more highway capacity, it is better to build a parallel route somewhere.

I am also not convinced that service drives are worth the space they take up. Here is SE Florida, with a square grid like SE Michigan, there are no service drives on I-95 or the turnpike and it seems to work quite well.

[Wesley Mouch]

Hey, Captain Disingenuous. If you "reduce congestion" by "adding capacity" and it then will "generate an additional degree of traffic above the current levels," then you can NEVER reduce congestion by building capacity. And that's exactly what the phenomenon of "induced demand" is all about.

C'mon, Bham. I don't know what ax you're grinding here, but you know better...

Nerdum, you are both right. No need to get upset.

But Nehrdo, you really can't use this 'induced demand' argument against freeways. 'Induced demand' is simply a fact of life. Like gravity. Every resource that gets improved sees induced demand. While you use it to argue against freeway expansion, Woodward Avenue is enjoying and benefitting from induced demand. So did the paths cut through the woods by Native Americans. The induced demand begat dirt roads, paved roads, freeways.

btw, don't we want induced demand? Should only Chicago be busy? Don't we want Detroit to be 'in demand'?

[Khorasaurus]

btw, don't we want induced demand? Should only Chicago be busy? Don't we want Detroit to be 'in demand'?

The expansion won't induce demand to go TO Detroit,only THROUGH Detroit at the expense of everything around the freeway.

[313WX]

The expansion won't induce demand to go TO Detroit,only THROUGH Detroit at the expense of everything around the freeway.

That's what logic would dictate. If people truly wanted to come to Detroit, nothing's stopping them. It's not like I-94 is suddenly shut off from traffic between I-96 to Conner because it's only 3 lanes. Besides, the roads immediately around I-94 wouldn't be heavily underutilized ghost streets during the day if people wanted to be in Detroit.

[professorscott]

Detroit already has, so far as I have been able to determine, more lane-miles of free expressway per capita than any major city in the world. And so far it's working out great; so yeah, let's add some more.

[jtf1972]

This was planned long ago when I-275 was first planned and was cancelled by the late 70s.At this point it will hopefully never happen. It would have huge right-of-way acquistion costs, huge environmental impact, massive destruction of wetlands, and lead to an insane amount of sprawl.

Actually, the route of I-275 was originally to be I-75 itself, and the local spur was to come up the route of current I-75 & continue straight past where it makes that abrupt turn at [[the former) Hastings St. I believe it then at some point connected to I-94. Things changed when those in the route of the incomplete I-275 balked at having the freeway plow through.

[Scottathew]

Expanding the freeways are needed. However, that's not to say that other methods aren't needed too.

Keep in mind that on I-75 that the 4th lane will be an HOV lane during rush hour. This will promote folks to get cars off the road.

Those saying that induced demand is going to eliminate all congestion relief are not being genuine. There most certainly will be induced demand, there will also be some reduction due to the HOV lane. However, adding a lane is going to reduce congestion, for now.

The bottom line is, it's going to move people faster to where they're going. It's going to buy us some time to start working on real regional transit. While I'm not hopeful we will ever really get it done, I do think attitudes are starting to change. Hopefully they change fast enough.